Hillary, the VP spot, and that bucket of warm whatever (is she better off with Obama or without him?)
Even a decisive win for Hillary today in both South Dakota and Montana—which is unlikely, but which could cause the superdelegates to think twice about Obama—might not save her Presidential aspirations.
Hillary’s goose appears to be cooked. The fat lady is starting to practice her scales. The writing’s on the wall.
But what about the Veep spot? Can Hillary stomach being number two to Obama’s number one? And can he stomach having the Clintons under him?
I don’t pretend to have any access to what either candidate is thinking. But such a ticket would seem to give Obama a better chance of winning against McCain than the alternative Vice Presidential choices. An Obama-Clinton ticket could unite if not all, then some of the bitter clingers who are now bitterly clinging to Hillary, voters Obama may need if he is to beat McCain.
Both Obama and Clinton are ambitious, and both want to be President. But Hillary knows that if Obama wins, and is in there for eight years with some other VP, she would be nearly as old as McCain is now when Obama got out of office and she finally got her chance at the Presidency.
Not a great situation for Hillary. Not to mention the fact that by then, after eight Obama years, the country might be ready for another change—and not the one Obama’s been speaking of, but one that veers back to the Republicans.
But that’s only one scenario. If Obama loses the 2008 election, Hillary is perfectly poised to take over, and to win, in 2012, when she will be only four years older than she is now. That’s of course if the country doesn’t re-elect President McCain, who will be so old then he’ll be positively geriatric.
The bottom line for both Democrats is the question Ann Landers used to recommend spouses ask themselves before undertaking a divorce: are you better off with him(her) or without him(her)? If Obama wants to be President (and he does, he does), and polling shows that his chances of winning are not as good when paired with other Democratic hopefuls but become much better with Hillary as his running mate, then I have little doubt that he will bite the bullet and ask her, no matter how little he wants Bill hanging around on the periphery shagging interns.
For Hillary, the decision would be even more complex. If offered the VP position, she’d probably take it if she thought that Obama stood a good chance of winning without her, which would block her chances of ever becoming President. As his Vice-President, she’d at least get to campaign till November, something she seems to enjoy. What’s more, she’d be only a heartbeat away from the prize—although it’s apparently not okay to mention it, and although the young and vigorous Obama is highly unlikely to have health problems (I rule out any special risk of assassination for Obama; all presidents are vulnerable, and that’s what the Secret Service is there for).
But the Vice-Presidency is the job that John Nance Garner (who knew whereof he spoke; he was FDR’s Veep for his first two terms) famously described as not being “worth a pitcherful of warm spit.” Actually, he said it wasn’t “worth a bucket of warm piss,” a phrase that was cleaned up by the media of the times for the delicate sensibilities of the day (although I’m not altogether certain why a vast quantity of spit is so much less icky than one of piss, and a pitcher seems hardly better than a bucket of the stuff. But I digress.)
So the other question is: would Hillary prefer the VP spot, or would she rather remain as a power broker in a Senate that stands to be strongly Democrat? Could she even, if she plays her cards right and supports Obama’s campaign without becoming his running mate, end up being Majority Leader? Is this what she wants? Would this be enough?
I don’t know the answer. But I do think it hinges on her evaluation of Obama’s chances to win, plus whether she agrees with Garner or not on the desirability of the VP spot in general.
Garner’s life in the office offers a strange and cautionary tale. One parallel to the present situation is that Garner (who was Speaker of the House at the time) and Roosevelt were rivals for the Democratic nomination of 1932, but neither had enough votes to win although FDR was the frontrunner. FDR offered him the Veep spot and went on to sew up the nomination, they united forces in the general (although Garner was a lukewarm campaigner at best), and ended up winning handily.
Ironically, Garner came extremely close to becoming President instead of Roosevelt, when two weeks before the inauguration FDR narrowly escaped assassination in a Chicago attack in which Mayor Cermak was killed. Roosevelt went on to be President and Garner went on to a second term as VP, and it was here that he encountered great difficulty, openly breaking with FDR on matters such as the packing of the Supreme Court.
When FDR made it clear he was running for a third term, Garner had enough. The situation seems a little like the Biblical story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah, wherein Jacob learns to his sorrow that seven years of hard work won’t win the woman he wants. Jacob kept laboring for Laban seven more years and finally got Rachel, but Garner didn’t run again (although if he had hung in there for two more terms he would have become President at the age of 76, which for him was relatively young since he lived to be almost 99).
The Vice-Presidency is an office in which it’s best if a person has a natural bent for being subservient and playing second fiddle. Hillary lacks the requisite personality traits. Besides, she’s already done quite a bit of that in her life as First Lady of Arkansas and then of the nation.
But she’s hardly unique; many Vice Presidents lack those humble tendencies After all, most politicians must be egotists—and those VPs who, like Hillary, had initially been seeking the Presidency are more likely to combine that egotism with supreme ambition.
Garner also is quoted as saying that being Vice President was “the worst damn fool mistake I ever made.” But hindsight is 20/20, and it mustn’t have seemed that way at the time or he wouldn’t have accepted. And, in one of those exercises in alternative history, it’s even possible that if Garner hadn’t run as VP, FDR might not have won the election. That certainly would have affected the course of later events.
Of one thing I’m fairly certain: if Garner had not become Vice President, he would hardly be remembered at all today. As it is, he’s known mostly for his pithy and earthy remarks on the subject, rather than his record. But if Hillary fails to become Vice-President, my guess is that her fame will linger a bit longer, and that she might end up with a chance at winning it all in 2012.
[ADDENDUM: I’m beginning to wonder whether Hillary will be offered the VP spot after all. Her non-concession speech last night seems to have enraged many Obamaphiles (see especially the comments). Family feuds can be the worst.]
Pingback:Hillary will suspend, not concede - UPDATED | The Anchoress
There is not a chance of Hillary Clinton being named as Obonga’s running mate. Mrs. O hates Hillary and has told her husband that under no circumstances is that woman to be his VP. Michelle O is a very strong, aggressive personality and the rumor is that she wears the pants in that family. Michelle O is also very politically powerful and exerts great influence over her husband, as he seems to put her counsel above all others.
It makes no sense for Hillary to accept the VP spot; there is nothing in it for her future. If Obama is elected and runs even a moderately successful administration his chances of being re-elected in 2012 would be high. If Obama’s administration would be a disaster, his VP would have no hope of running a successful campaign in 2012 even if Obam did not run. Her best option is to hope for a McCain victory which would make her candidacy in 2012 an attractive “I told you so” run.
Hillary could run for NY governor. The current office holder after the departure of Eliot ‘client 9’ spitzer is not likely to win reelection. Bloomberg will probably run, but Hillary stands a good chance.
Being governor will give her some real experience for good or bad and remove the taint of tagging along behind bill (or Obama)
I agree with the other commenters, but if she runs, I bet Stand By Your Man will hit the charts again.
Even a decisive win for Hillary today in both South Dakota and Montana–which is unlikely, but which could cause the super delegates to think twice about Obama–might not save her Presidential aspirations.
No, but I will bet a bottom dollar that she knows about the video of Michelle Obama and Farrakhan, and probably has known for a while. Her “assassination” comment may be a “duping delight” display of knowing that politically he may be dead before the end of the month.
The opposition would tactically want to wait. Let Obama have the party place as candidate, show the video, collect the prize. Obama would not want it to come out ever. And Hillary would want it to come out now, have it kill Obama politically, and then step to the podium.
I now believe that that’s why she flubbed the assassination word, because they had been talking about political assassination of the reputation kind.
Hillary’s goose appears to be cooked. The fat lady is starting to practice her scales. The writing’s on the wall.
Is it? If that video is real, and comes out… (Others are now saying they saw it, and there is some leeks of the kinds of words being said. If it doesn’t exist with all that stuff, I will be amazed), then Hillary is on top as the only contender.
It’s my belief that Hillary has known about the video for a while. Unlike Obama, she has a lot more real connections in the government and so her connections and such would let her know. Same would be true of McCain. Obama would be the odd duck out, and would be the one to forget all the posturing they did to create a leftist base of radicals that was not under the control of the Daly machine.
Her behavior didn’t make sense till the video news started making rounds.
The Vice-Presidency is an office in which it’s best if a person has a natural bent for being subservient and playing second fiddle.
Which is why things with vice presidents in the past were different. Many of the presidents and vice presidents of the past were military men. Military men learn how to lead by first learning to serve.
So the assertion to having to have a natural bent for being subservient is only a modern view that comes from feminist power politics where everything in the gender/class struggle is about power and who is on top.
Read about Elizabeth. You will find that if it weren’t for a small group of men totally dedicated to the office of the crown, unlike today, she would never have had her office. She had plots all around her, but the men around her knew that they would be more by being less.
Leftism lets everyone believe that if they side with the game, they all will live like kings.
Leftism says we are all victims of each other.
Old western Judeo Christian culture said there was to be a time and a place for everything. That great men (and women) were everywhere and in the most unlikely places, not just in the highest offices of government.
It’s a fool that thinks that such an office is a second fiddle place. it comes from the pitcher syndrome where everyone believes that everything happens because of the pitcher. Not the catcher, the fielders, the guys on base, etc…
The more we become collectivized, the more we need to have the top place to not be a nothing in a mass. The more we are individuals, the more we are important parts in a complex machine that cant do without us.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What I find interesting as to the tape that is now being claimed to be a hoax, is that hoaxes don’t have this weirdness about it.
The left says it’s a hoax (see: gay wired), OR it gives a “plausible” reason that what she says isn’t “whitey”, but “why’d he”.
The whole thing is very interesting to watch.
Bob Beckel and the Mighty Big Shoe
hotair.com/archives/2008/06/03/bob-beckel-and-the-mighty-big-shoe/
Democratic strategist Bob Beckel appeared on Fox & Friends this morning and dropped a bombshell. Beckel says he believes a “shoe will drop” as early as tomorrow, and that it involves Michelle Obama. This will, he says, be “significantly” bigger than the earlier college-thesis issue, which implies that the supposed “whitey” video exists.
(The college thesis issue was Hillarie’s paper at Wellesley)
And other words is that the republicans don’t have it, so many are thinking it’s a Clinton thing.
No one can figure if this is real or not… but its got a sticking power (as noted in the news video) that makes people pay attention when normally they wouldn’t. so he thinks that whoever is doing this knows and is orchestrating it.
That only leaves potential “tin hat” possibilities. Like the state taping Farrakhan, and of course catching Michelle with it. Trinity is a huge place with enough money (15 million in your tax dollars), and has their own video records. But they wouldn’t go through the archives and then pick this out. The ones on youtube are when news coverage at the church occurred so news outlets found it by going through their tapes. That leaves only home videos, and state taping of radials speeches.
So it may be that the details around the tape may be as oddly interesting as the potential tape itself.
All of the musings on the state taping are just that, musings. They have no basis in fact other than musings.
I guess we shall see in a short time…
oh… if obama gets hillary, then mccain should run with condoleeza. i think in bridge thats a trump card.
I was thinking today about a video I would make, if I did such things. I would start out with film clips and quotes from the Dems, starting maybe with JFK and going through all the candidates. They would be quotes dealing with the common man, how the party is for the working class. And I would show the candidates becoming less and less connected with those voters, ending with Obama’s “bitter” quote. I would end it with Joe Lieberman’s quote about how he didn’t leave the party.
I think there are folks out there that have voted Democratic their entire lives and just might not do that this election. It would be great to show them just how much the party has changed.
I dont know. I personally can’t see it. Not even if it means bringing in the Hillary female voting block. Has Hillary really hinted at this?
I”ll tell you what; The Secret Service would have to perform a full body cavity search on the VP every time the two of them get between direct line of sight of each other.
I guess Hillary just can’t get anywhere unless it’s on the coattails of a guy
The other question is whether Hillary’s getting the VP slot would actually mollify her supporters. She’d still be getting pushed aside for the (as Hillary’s supporters see it), less accomplished but flashier and younger man.
(I’d say younger and flashier, sure, but in accomplishments, it’s pretty much a dead heat.)
More crime for not being politically correct in France.
French screen icon Bardot fined for anti-Muslim remarks ::: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080603162444.u52osd46&show_article=1
Hillary might run as an Independent, I doubt she will run on the ticket with Obama, June will be an interesting month.
Hillary will not accept the VP nomination. That might guarantee Obama’s election, which would mean she couldn’t run until 2016. Too late. She would be 69. Her only hope for running in 2012 is to have Obama lose in 2008.
Regarding the tape. While many or even most doubt its existence, very few consider it implausible that Michelle Obama could once again have put her foot in her mouth. We all love to hear ourselves talk, but it appears that Michelle Obama loves to hear herself talk more than the average person does. She most likely said such a thing, most likely on many occasions. Perhaps she said such a thing as pillow talk to her husband. The only question is: can it be proved by tape?
My alias/name says it all. The bush family are devout followers of Rev Moon. Search on google for Rev Moon, bush and messiah and you will see that it cannot be denied. Actual film on the site.
As far as McCain goes – he is an unstable moron.
McCain foes, allies address his temper
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/07/20080407mccain-grudges0407.html
PHOENIX —— While rising in the GOP presidential polls, Sen. John McCain is facing questions about what some Arizona political leaders view as his quick temper — and whether it might hinder him as president.
In a front page article and separate editorial Sunday, The Arizona Republic said it wanted the nation to know about the “volcanic” temper McCain has unleashed on several top state officials.
Those who have been on the receiving end of a McCain uproar include Republican Gov. Jane Hull, former Republican Gov. Rose Mofford and former Democratic Mayor Paul Johnson of Phoenix.
Mrs. Hull, a supporter of GOP presidential front-runner George W. Bush, has acknowledged that her relationship with McCain has been cool and told an interviewer recently McCain “has to keep control” of his temper.
A Hull spokesman, Francie Noyes, said Sunday the governor had no further comment on the matter of McCain’s temperament and that “she wants to move on to other things.”
But the Arizona Republic, which endorsed McCain for each of his five congressional races but has not yet made an endorsement in the presidential race, was direct.
It declared in an editorial:
“If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona. There is also reason to seriously question whether he has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991031/aponline183823_000.htm
John McCain’s Temper Preceded Vietnam
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/5/00548.shtml
I’ve seen John McCain’s temper
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/04/ive_seen_john_mccains_temper.html
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/07/murphy2407.html
Great post, Bush_is_a_moonie. I want the Iranians to know all about his instability, his nasty temper, and our military capabilities.
Then – and only then – can we think about negotiating successfully with them.
In addition to the “bucket” comment, I believe Garner also said the proper way to address a Vice-President was, “Your Superfluous Eminence”.
> Can Hillary stomach being number two to Obama’s number one?
I’d doubt it.
> And can he stomach having the Clintons under him?
I’d sooner be in a hole with a dozen pit vipers than have Hillary as my successor.
I would not put it past her to have him assassinated just so she could take over and “heal the wounds” from the inevitable race riots that would result. Oh, and don’t plan on her letting up on the suspension of Habeas Corpus or the resumption of free elections, too quickly, either….
If there is any major politico around who I think has the least desirable qualities to be PotUS it would be Hillary. Her arrogance of place, her lust for power, her lack of any grasp of what the Contitution is actually about was amply shown when she was First Lady (I use that last word very loosely), and she used the FBI (by what Constitutional power does she order the FBI to do *anything*, please?) to investigate her husband’s political enemies, compiling hundreds of dossiers.
:-/
> Michelle O is a very strong, aggressive personality and the rumor is that she wears the pants in that family.
LOL:
Obama, Kennedy, and the Disturbing Matter of a Dog
And if you like that one, I also recommend the more recent:
Obama, Manliness, and the Notion of Black Privilege
OOp. Sorry, both those links above, scroll up and read the blog entry, not (or not only) the comments…
Warm spit is worth less than warm piss anyway; you can use the ammonia for something.
Mrs. Clinton has to concede the race before any talk of cabinet or ticket slots can happen.
Right?
She’s declared a holdiay for her troops. She’s still fundraising.
The candidate isn’t the candidate until the votes are counted. In spite of media’s deepest desires, Mr. Obama has accomplished nothing except the promises of a bunch of individuals that they will vote for him.
In Denver.
At the end of the summer.
That’s a long time. A news cycle is a long time in politics.
This isn’t over. It will end in Denver.
I’d have to agree that Obama/Clinton looks better on paper than in practice. I don’t see how either of them could look forward to the prospect … except for the reality that Obama is about the least qualified and most bizarre serious presidential candidate in our history. He needs all the help he can get.
he Vice-Presidency is an office in which it’s best if a person has a natural bent for being subservient and playing second fiddle.
But wait! Haven’t I been hearing for the last eight years that it is VP Cheney that’s running the country by pulling the puppet strings of the non-sentient, moron Bush? You know, it’s all for one and one for Halliburton? Wouldn’t that new reality work just as well with the all-knowing Clintons acting as puppeteers controlling the shallow Great Orator?
I think she’s setting a trap for the poor little ninny. If he rejects her as VP, she can say, See? He can’t even unite the party. How can he unite the country? If he takes her as his running mate, then she has 4 years in which to upstage him at every turn. The more we see of Obama, the clearer it is that this won’t be hard.
can we finally cut to the tape?
clinton will not run with obama since it will not give her a presidency. if she is with him and he loses, she loses. if she is with him and his presidency sucks, she will lose… if its great, he gets another, and she will lose.
she will foul him up with the greate tool of leftist envy that says, if i cant have it, no one can.
this would then give mccain the lead, and in 4 years she is the front runner free and clear.
no other option makes her come out as soon and ready with no millstones.
that is except if the tape surfaces. then its no wait for 4 years, and she gets to try against mccain now.
the most interesting thing is watching the back on forth on a tape that may or may not exist.
no one actually knows yet, but the number of people on the left that are SURE its a hoax is incredible. they use all kinds of things that dont prove anything. like the fact that the tape may not have been at trinity but at the sheriton… as if using those words are different depending on where you are.
this is starting to take on the feel of who shot JR.
here is the link to hillbuzz
hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/06/whats-on-michelle-obama-rant-tape.html
The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th – July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.
Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.
Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.
Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.
For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that’s when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who’s seen this.
The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.
This outburst happened just one month before the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Barack Obama delivered the keynote address.
UPDATED: It seems really easy for Chicago local media, especially, to determine whether or not this is the right tape of Michelle Obama. All they need to do is pull the tape from this 2004 Conference (particularly the panel Michelle was on), which should be readily available (since this was a very large multi-day event). All a journalist needs to do is watch this tape: if this is not the right one, they’d know immediately and this issue would be debunked. But, logically, this seems to be the most likely source of the tape people have been talking about at NoQuarterUSA.net
given that slick willy was there, they knew from the very start of this election that they had a trump card and were waiting to play it.
Michelle Obama ‘Ghost Tape’ May not be a Mirage
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/michelle_obama_ghost_tape_may.html
maybe someone should offer a prize for the first person that shows a cut scene from it.
[if they want money for it, thats the reason it hasnt just come out. they would first sew up the exclusives and options and so on]
here is an example of how the left is treating it.
Michelle Obama and Uncle Joe: Forthcoming scoop from Larry Johnson
harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003033
while larry johnson is not the best source in the world, and why all of this is hanging in the air. whats interesting is the kind of McCarthy angle to it all.
its starting to become surreal… as in salvador dali dropping acid and allowing you a peek.
though the graphic replacing obamas head with stalin is interesing.
Pingback:Bookworm Room » What I’ll be reading today
Pingback:Bookworm Room » Watcher’s results